Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[upstater]

I hear you. I am tired of dissing schools that got a seat when the music stopped and are in a better spot than us.

Oliver Luck is my target, not WV. When Luck says his fantasy league included the Catholics, he's talking out of his butt. When he says that no one in the G5 has monetary value above the B12, he is talking out of his butt.

 

[clmssun]

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 1m
WVU’s Luck said in 2011 if B12 blew up, B12/Big East would have merged: Bay, KU, KSU, ISU, TCU, UL, UC, RU, WVU, USF, UCF, UConn

... and I have wasted my time (before I finally learned my lesson) conveying this very scenario to the Dude to his continuous denial. I still think KSU, ISU, TCU, Bay, WVU, UCF, and USF end up as a conference in the future. (I think UConn will be in ACC or B1G when this happens).

 

[businesslawyer]

Oliver Luck is my target, not WV. When Luck says his fantasy league included the Catholics, he's talking out of his butt. When he says that no one in the G5 has monetary value above the B12, he is talking out of his butt.

I don't understand your second point. He is not saying that BYU, for example, doesn't have value over Iowa State. He's saying that BYU won't bring up the average take of the conference, which is hardly an irrational belief.

 

[SAMCRO]

Oliver Luck seems to think West Virginia brings more value than a school like UConn. As always, Luck is talking out of his butt, and we know for a fact the Catholics opposed adding more teams, esp. from the B12.

So did the B12

 

[upstater]

I don't understand your second point. He is not saying that BYU, for example, doesn't have value over Iowa State. He's saying that BYU won't bring up the average take of the conference, which is hardly an irrational belief.

We've been batting around UConn's value for ages now. Looking at the money UConn has generated for rightsholders, and what happened with SNY and the monthly subscription, UConn generated a hefty amount, even when these revenues are split between the producer/network and the school itself. 1.75 million TV households times the extra $1 a month fee.

 

[upstater]

So did the B12

D'Oh? It did? You're saying nothing else worked into their decision but monetary value? Is that right?

 

[Husky92]

I hear you. I am tired of dissing schools that got a seat when the music stopped and are in a better spot than us.

I'm not. I'm going to keep dissing them until the day comes that we get a spot at the same table, then someone else can go and diss me (and my school) but I won't care!

 

[woomba]

So, he thinks Texas Tech, Texas, Okie St. and OU would have been P12? Missouri didn't have an SEC berth at that point in time.

Larry Scott brokered a deal where those 4 schools would have joined the Pac-12. It got killed by the Pac-12 presidents when he brought it up to them - apparently he never asked the presidents how they would feel about the move before trying to move ahead with it.

 

[SAMCRO]

D'Oh? It did? You're saying nothing else worked into their decision but monetary value? Is that right?

Where did I say "monetary value" exclusively? I said the B12 valued WVU more than UConn. There are a lot of factors that determine value (money, geography, athletic success, academic mission and success, interest in making a move, to name only a few). This was in response to your comment that Luck was talking out of his butt as he seemed to think WVU brings more value than a school like UConn. The proof of B12 thinking WVU added more value than UConn is in their invitation of WVU to join their conference while UConn continues to twist in the wind. And he's right, WVU does add more value to the B12 than UConn. Just as UConn would add more value to the B1G than WVU (I'm not even going to fathom a guess as to what adds value to the ACC since that seems to change by the week).

 

[upstater]

Larry Scott brokered a deal where those 4 schools would have joined the Pac-12. It got killed by the Pac-12 presidents when he brought it up to them - apparently he never asked the presidents how they would feel about the move before trying to move ahead with it.

Right. But that was early on. If you remember, Texas continued to be courted long after that, and considered moving.

 

[upstater]

Where did I say "monetary value" exclusively? I said the B12 valued WVU more than UConn. There are a lot of factors that determine value (money, geography, athletic success, academic mission and success, interest in making a move, to name only a few). This was in response to your comment that Luck was talking out of his butt as he seemed to think WVU brings more value than a school like UConn. The proof of B12 thinking WVU added more value than UConn is in their invitation of WVU to join their conference while UConn continues to twist in the wind. And he's right, WVU does add more value to the B12 than UConn. Just as UConn would add more value to the B1G than WVU (I'm not even going to fathom a guess as to what adds value to the ACC since that seems to change by the week).

Luck was talking about money. This discussion is about money.

 

[Kolumbo]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

 

[kyleslamb]

Pet peeve: really wish people would stop using the terminology D-4 (most especially the media and administrative folks). It's not really a fourth division. It's a third sub-division that will [potentially] have some autonomy that expands beyond football.

Unfortunately, though, even Mike Slive uttered the phrase, so now it's an epidemic haha.

 

[Kolumbo]

Pet peeve: really wish people would stop using the terminology D-4 (most especially the media and administrative folks). It's not really a fourth division. It's a third sub-division that will [potentially] have some autonomy that expands beyond football.

Unfortunately, though, even Mike Slive uttered the phrase, so now it's an epidemic haha.

So if they get "autonomy," they stay in Division I with their special rules. If not, they split off, but it's not really D4 because it's not part of the NCAA. Is that correct?

 

[itgoeslike]

Pet peeve: really wish people would stop using the terminology D-4 (most especially the media and administrative folks). It's not really a fourth division. It's a third sub-division that will [potentially] have some autonomy that expands beyond football.

Unfortunately, though, even Mike Slive uttered the phrase, so now it's an epidemic haha.

Implementation of "P5-defined" autonomy would be the third sub-division. However, if they don't get it as defined, Slive is suggesting (threatening) a division that operates separately from D-1 (but may still be under the umbrella of the NCAA). It could just be posturing for the sake of negotiation, but he is suggesting another division altogether.

I just don't see how they separate cleanly from the AAC if all members of the conference agree to play by the same rules as the P5. We'll know more in a few months.

 

[itgoeslike]

So if they get "autonomy," they stay in Division I with their special rules. If not, they split off, but it's not really D4 because it's not part of the NCAA. Is that correct?

I'm sure Kyle will speak for himself, but I think he is suggesting that FCS and FBS already exist within D-1 of the NCAA, and the P5 (Resource 5) would represent a third sub-division with greater autonomy, a FP5 if you will, but would still be under the NCAA.

Edit: I misread your post. The D4 could be under the NCAA or outside of it. Although, most people feel that operating outside of the NCAA is a nonstarter and may create more problems than they solve.

 

[kyleslamb]

Implementation of "P5-defined" autonomy would be the third sub-division. However, if they don't get it as defined, Slive is suggesting (threatening) a division that operates separately from D-1 (but may still be under the umbrella of the NCAA). It could just be posturing for the sake of negotiation, but he is suggesting another division altogether.

I just don't see how they separate cleanly from the AAC if all members of the conference agree to play by the same rules as the P5. We'll know more in a few months.

No, the request for more autonomy is merely under the guise of remaining in a system as-is, except for expanded voting powers. The "Division IV" that Slive mentions is actually a new subdivision.

The autonomy requested is just a pretense to wind up going to the new subdivision. They're going to act like they're working to keep FBS together in the meantime, if schools are willing to grant autonomy. If (when) it doesn't happen, they'll create a third Division I subdivision (which is being phrased as Division 4)

Edit: they've been discussing a need for another subdivision at their annual meetings and in newsletters for the past three seasons. But these threats are the first time they've mentioned the division in public. First, they need to make it look like they tried to make this current arrangement work, but when schools are unable or unwilling to grant the autonomy necessary to cater to athletes' interests, they'll then create the new subdivision.

 

[woomba]

Right. But that was early on. If you remember, Texas continued to be courted long after that, and considered moving.

Courted yes, but I don't think any other proposals got strong consideration. All realistic chances evaporated once the Pac-16 deal got killed.

IIRC Texas essentially re-iterated the need to keep some form of LHN and that they need a fiefdom to lord over, so any realignment option that they would seek actively would need to incorporate a sizable chunk of the current Big 12

 

[Ha Who]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

I didn't know Scott Gray is Mr. SEC

 

[itgoeslike]

No, the request for more autonomy is merely under the guise of remaining in a system as-is, except for expanded voting powers. The "Division IV" that Slive mentions is actually a new subdivision.

The autonomy requested is just a pretense to wind up going to the new subdivision. They're going to act like they're working to keep FBS together in the meantime, if schools are willing to grant autonomy. If (when) it doesn't happen, they'll create a third Division I subdivision (which is being phrased as Division 4)

Edit: they've been discussing a need for another subdivision at their annual meetings and in newsletters for the past three seasons. But these threats are the first time they've mentioned the division in public. First, they need to make it look like they tried to make this current arrangement work, but when schools are unable or unwilling to grant the autonomy necessary to cater to athletes' interests, they'll then create the new subdivision.

It depends on how you're defining sub-division. Currently the P5 are asking for autonomy within Division 1. Whether it's crafted as a group of conferences operating under a different set of rules or whether a new name is coined for the P5, it's still a subdivision. Slive is going beyond that (as punishment for watered-down autonomy) "suggesting" a separation akin to D-1 and D-2. Most people feel that it's unlikely they create a new division because it comes with both baggage and risk. With regard to your edits, the subdivision they've been discussing over the past three seasons have been within D-1 under the umbrella of the NCAA. However, they've also kicked around both publicly and privately the notion of a new division altogether.

 

[kyleslamb]

It depends on how you're defining sub-division. Currently the P5 are asking for autonomy within Division 1. Whether it's crafted as a group of conferences operating under a different set of rules or whether a new name is coined for the P5, it's still a subdivision. Slive is going beyond that (as punishment for watered-down autonomy) "suggesting" a separation akin to D-1 and D-2. Most people feel that it's unlikely they create a new division because it comes with both baggage and risk. With regard to your edits, the subdivision they've been discussing over the past three seasons have been within D-1 under the umbrella of the NCAA. However, they've also kicked around both publicly and privately the notion of a new division altogether.

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:

“Even in Division 4, though, we would want to be part of the basketball tournament and all of the championships,” Slive said. “We don't want to disrupt the championships, even if we went to Division 4. But it would be an alternate to creating autonomy in certain areas. We think the NCAA and college athletics are better served if we all stay together in Division I.”

All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

 

[Sea Goat]

Mr. SEC wrote this morning...but he never got around to his second point, which teams have the best chance of breaking into the P5 if there is a D4...
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/

A candid report on where we are now. Further proof that the AAC is a dead end. (And the "end of the road is not years out", but maybe only a couple.)Interestingly, Mr. SEC believes ESPN can assist if they believe the addition of a team will move the needle. Malloy had better be inquiring of his beneficiaries in Bristol as to what they can do to help UConn along.

 

[upstater]

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:

All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

At some point, other people can say NO to that too.

 

[itgoeslike]

Slive is not going beyond that. He even said they have no interest in breaking off from the other sports. He made that very clear:



All he wants is voting autonomy within FBS for the power conferences to be able to legislate sport and institutional-specific rules governing costs of attendance, benefits, etc.. What he's saying is that if they don't get it, they'll form a new subdivision (what he's calling Division IV). That means they'll break off from FBS, creating a third football subdivision, but they'll still have their own autonomy for institutional-wide legislation despite being a Division I participant.

To beat the point to death, the Division IV that the SEC is threatening is NOT a new division. It's a football subdivision that will have legislative autonomy within the framework of Division I.

None of the commissioners want to break off from D-1. Where we disagree is that you think they want to move towards a new subdivision and I think it is already a foregone conclusion, especially when you examine the tiered voting structure, etc. that is being adopted.

 

[kyleslamb]

None of the commissioners want to break off from D-1. Where we disagree is that you think they want to move towards a new subdivision and I think it is already a foregone conclusion, especially when you examine the tiered voting structure, etc. that is being adopted.

We don't disagree on that. Look at a post I made earlier. They're setting this all up as a pretense for why they're going to do what they're doing. They made up their minds what they intended to do a while back. Right now they're just playing out the process in public by setting up a false premise.